My first debate ever. Ok, so I think that the government, or some officials should stop trying to debate over guns being taken away from citizens. Why? First of all, there are many other methods for killing someone. Like knifing someone. Maybe we should just ban knives! The point is, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are big help for self defense. The tragedies of Columbine, and other school shoo. tings are the ones where kids under 18 hold the guns. Adults shouldn't be so stupid to leave their firearms just lying around kids, andr not being irresponsible is what government should teach us. As for adults who wants to kill it hurt using guns, it is the person's brain that triggers to kill. It's in our conscience. As for Columbine, I think the parents should have known Eric Harris was hiding ammo and stuff from them. So its really parental, disciplinary, psychological, and mental issues people should fix. Gun control is a big waste of time, and it can waste lives because of lack of self defense.

"there are many other methods for killing someone...guns don't kill people, people kill people"by that logic, we should let people have tanks and machine guns and nukes.

"Guns are big help for self defense. "there are other tools for self defense, like pepper spray. guns are a poor choice for these reasons:-they can be used against you.-even if you kill a criminal, you are taking a risk in going to prison yourself, even if you dont deserve it.-if you shoot at a criminal, the bullet could miss and kill an innocent person, or go right through the criminal and still hit an innocent person.-many gun accidents happen.-if you used something like pepper spray instead, you could shoot as soon as there is a viable threat, and if it was a mistake it wouldnt be too bad, but with guns, you must hesitate longer because it is a more serious decision to shoot someone with a gun, which puts you at a greater risk to get killed while you are unsure about whether or not to shoot.

"its really parental, disciplinary, psychological, and mental issues people should fix. "Legalized guns means a greater chance of guns falling into the hands of kids or mentally ill. theres no 2 ways about it.

also, even if we are to allow for handguns, we should still have restrictions. there should be background checks, to make sure they arent known to be a criminal or mentally ill. there should be limits on how many guns and ammunition you can buy in a certain amount of time. there should be limits on how powerful of a gun people can have. and there should be records for every gun sale so police can trace them.

Ok. Criminals are the source of crime, no matter how they are armed.
And also, a fact is that a hunting rifle is very accurate even to 300 yards. THAT IS A FACT.
Gun control doesn't really reduce crimes. How do I know that? Because there are crimes like the L.A Riots, Oklahoma City Bombing..was tehre a gun used? NO. ITS BOMBS. Bombs are the ones that doesn't have a point BUT it is very helpful to military use.ONLY FOR WARS.
But for guns, we have chances to live because of it. How about women being stalked? THEY NEED GUNS.
You're safer if you do have guns in your home and are properly trained to handle them safely. You will feel safer.
There are estimated to be between 80 and 100 million legal gun owners who have no desire to kill anyone.
Tens of thousands of guns are used only for competitive target shooting, informal target shooting, skill competitions and historical reenactments.
Anything can be wrongfully used. Guns, cars, hammers, ice-picks, computers, etc. Only the person using the tool or device is responsible for how it's used. And clearly they are given to adults. I dont think the government is that stupid to give a gun to someone mentally ill and has a criminal background. But limiting it to normal people? I dont think its reasonable.
Study says that gun ownership is not really one good factor of why homicides happen. It's more of drugs, drinking, family violence etc. that triggers murder.
Seriously, people's brains should be fixed and not guns.

"Ok. Criminals are the source of crime, no matter how they are armed."would you rather a criminal have a gun or a knife?

"And also, a fact is that a hunting rifle is very accurate even to 300 yards. THAT IS A FACT."i dont know how that helps your point

"Gun control doesn't really reduce crimes. How do I know that? Because there are crimes like the L.A Riots, Oklahoma City Bombing..was there a gun used? NO. ITS BOMBS. Bombs are the ones that doesn't have a point BUT it is very helpful to military use.ONLY FOR WARS."so your logic is: bomb crimes exist. therefore, gun control doesnt reduce crimesthat's like saying X is true. therefore, Y is true. that doesnt logically follow

"How about women being stalked?"they should have pepper spray or a taser, or at the most a pistol, not a fully automatic gun

"You're safer if you do have guns in your home"as i explained in the other round, its' a poor choice. you're more likely to end up dead or in prison.

"There are estimated to be between 80 and 100 million legal gun owners who have no desire to kill anyone."Guns WILL fall into the wrong hands the more accessible they are.

"Anything can be wrongfully used. Guns, cars, hammers, ice-picks, computers, etc"guns are an unnecessary threat. we will be better off without guns

"people's brains should be fixed and not guns."i tell you what, the day that everyones brains are fixed, i will favor getting rid of gun control laws.

You're missing the problem. Criminals will find ways to go around legally acquiring guns. More laws/restrictions only benefit criminals and them committing crimes. Here is one example of how criminals acquire guns.

"About 1.4 million guns, or an annual average of 232,400, were stolen during burglaries and other property crimes in the six-year period from 2005 through 2010."http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...

Additionally, take a look at all of the interviews out there with prisoners and when asked who they would rob, someone who was armed or someone who was defenseless, they unanimously chose the defenseless person. It's naive to think that cracking down on non-registered guns will have ANY impact whatsoever. The only people that will comply with that are law abiding citizens. Gun registration has NEVER been able to show a reduction in violence (which is the root issue, not guns).

"Just because the Amendment says we should doesn't mean rules shouldn't be changed as time proceeds."

Do you understand how our country was founded? The colonists spent years under the oppression of the British government (King George III) and the British militia (Red Coats) that were stationed in the colonies were ordered to confiscate guns in order to continue to repress the people (history 101).

So allow for more shootings to occur. Yeah, Enough said. Basically those children's life mean nothing to you. Gun control doesn't necessary mean taking away all guns. What about the Batman movie theater shooting. Or all the college shootings. Gun control is a hard topic. But if they crack down on non registered guns and enforced the gun control. The guns shouldn't land in the hands of people that don't have the morality to use it correctly as often. One massacre shooting is too much. Over the decade there has been plenty of them. So arguing against something we have the right for by the 2nd Amendment is only logical to a certain point. If I want to buy a gun today legally, I'd have to go to the police station get the permit and go back to the store to buy it then head back to the police station to shoot it off for the registration so they know the mark on the bullets it makes in the act of shooting. Also maybe a test to conduct I'd know how to use it. That doesn't mean I will use it for defense or hunting. There being more control could just mean this, take away privately owned gun stores, place those in police stations so the only way to get a gun legally is through the police station itself and every registered gun has a I.D. photo of the person who is personally responsible for that gun.

How much more bloodshed with happen before you say gun control might be necessary? One innocent person dying from it no matter who that person is one to many.

Just because the Amendment says we should doesn't mean rules shouldn't be changed as time proceeds. You just sound like you're stuck in the past.

Additionally, if you think that banning guns or AR-15's is a good idea, does that mean you also support taking them away from the police? The police face the *exact* same criminal element we all face. If you think that the police should be able to keep those weapons then why can't we, as citizens, keep those same weapons since we face the criminals just as they do? And speaking of police, they are NOT require to come and protect you from another individual (private party) because there is no duty, so liability will not attach (no money damages available). The exceptions are when the police have a person in custody or when the state caused the danger. So, if the police are NOT require to protect us who will take the responsibility to protect us? Answer: It has ALWAYS been our individual responsibility to defend ourselves from criminals and a hostile government.

"District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do *NOT* have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals." (like a Senator)

Banning magazine sizes is laughable just as much as the idea that cosmetic appearances somehow make a weapon less dangerous. The proposed "solutions" do nothing more then damage a market in our economy and make people victims.

If you ban guns, they won't magically go away. What then? Forcibly take as many guns away as possible? If so, that infringes on our Right to Property as guaranteed in the Constitution. So, now it's ok to infringe on two of our Rights? Where does it stop?

Why can't the government simply prohibit extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan (founded by democrats) from expressing their hateful views in public? The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of freedom of speech to all Americans, even those whose opinions are reprehensible. To place an outright ban on the speech of certain groups would be unconstitutional and contrary to a fundamental tenet of American Freedoms.

If you agree that it's a people problem then the issue has little to do with guns. What about the next time someone is charged with slander or libel are you planning on demanding the repeal of the First Amendment or a ban on what people can say (ban all scary sounding words or ban scary sounding music)?

A great place to start is education. For everyone, not just gun owners. It is not the gun owners I hear whimpering with fear to get rid of the guns (who are often falsely portrayed by those opposed to gun ownership as reckless and violent), it is the sniveling cowards that are so paranoid and terrified of firearms they want them banned. Then they want an *armed* police to come save them when they are attacked. When seconds count the police are only 10-15 minutes away.

What options do you suggest for people to be able to defend themselves against the government (ever heard of the Battle of Athens?) or common criminals if you want to take away the ability to defend oneself? Increased police (frag the Republic and let's become a police state!)? What about "Harsh words" because that worked so well for the Colonial Marines?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, "

Sure, you need a organized armed force to defend your country.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is the People (as in We the People) in contrast with the militia. Why the word "People"? It doesn't say the right of the militia, it's the right of the People. The people who wrote this just fought a war against the tyrannical state militia. So they made it a right that the gun control militia could never take away.

The 2nd amendment is the only right that protects all other rights because it's not worth the paper it's printed on if you don't have the means to defend them. We want the government to be afraid of it's citizens not the citizens to be afraid of the government. The government has to think carefully about what they try to take from us and the government can only take from us with what we give them.

Criminals admit (like gang members) they like gun control laws because "they're a joke". They don't directly effect the criminal or gang member other then to make their victim(s) defenseless. Funny thing is that criminals are scared of innocent people with guns. Just like unarmed innocent people are scared of armed criminals.

Not even. By that reasoning it fits the description then technically all children are slaves of their parents. They are not. But stuff happens, when stuff happens you see a child playing with it, if you would not stop it to prevent harm then you are a Jackass. Enough said. Controlling guns in the argument to make it safer does not make it Slavery.

I was being sarcastic in regards to the use of death camps for enforcing totalitarianism.

Regarding kids, they are the responsibility of their parents, and responsible parents don't leave knives around and soon as they are able to understand simple concepts parents should teach them gun safety and other stuff.

"Honestly if they gave it to the people to vote for because there are many different view points upon this.
By that logic we should just take out the whole constitution with everything."

Actually how is taking guns away speaking of genocide.
Honestly if they gave it to the people to vote for because there are many different view points upon this.
By that logic we should just take out the whole constitution with everything.
No comment on the kid thing huh. So you see a 3 year old playing with a knife, Would you take it away? If yes, "that's slavery man" but if no, your allowing him to potentially cause harm on himself and others. Give an example yes?

In my old neighborhood, it was on the news. A nine year old found a gun behind the house unfortunately and yes this is a sad story. But he was playing with it and shot and killed his 7 or 8 year old friend.